HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 BUS SHELTER PROG. 01-16-95NO. 21
1-16-95
DATE:
JANUARY 16, 1995
Inter-Com
TO:
FROM:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATiON~ ) ,
SUBJEC~ AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS FOR ADVERTISING BUS
SHELTERS PROGRAM (P.W. FILE NO. 1092)
i i i i i i ii ii i ii i
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to enter
into negotiations with Patrick-Target Media for an exclusive
advertising bus shelter franchise agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is estimated that the Patrick-Target proposal, as modified to
reflect approved locations, will result in annual revenue of
approximately $68,880 to the City or $344,400 over the life of the
minimum term of the franchise agreement. In addition, Patrick-
Target would also provide approximately $45,898 in potential
additional benefit to the City in the way of non-advertising
shelters, concrete benches, maintenance and City Public Service
Announcement Panels.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
At their meeting of January 3, 1995, the City Council requested to
continue this item to the January 16, 1995 meeting. One of the
proposing companies had expressed concern regarding the proposal
evaluation process. In order to address any specific concerns,
staff contacted each of the companies requesting that any questions
or issues be submitted in writing to be addressed in this report.
Staff has received only one letter (attached) from a proposing
company expressing concerns regarding the selection process.
Specifically, Metro Display Advertising indicated in their
correspondence that they proposed only 20 bus stop shelters under
the belief that the City was not interested in "wide scale
advertising". However, the Request for Proposal (RFP) purposely
did not place a limit as to the number of shelters to be proposed,
to encourage the submittal of competitive responses. Staff
received no other written or verbal concerns or questions from any
of the proposing companies.
The City Council approved the Request for Proposals for Advertising
Bus Shelters at their July 5, 1994 meeting. The City advertised
and solicited proposals and received three responses from the
following firms: Patrick-Target, Gannett Transit and Metro
Display.
To evaluate the proposals received, the Proposal Evaluation
Committee was selected and comprised of the following individuals:
Authorization to Enter into Negotiations for Advertising Bus
Shelters Program
January 16, 1995
Page 2
Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant City Manager
Kathy Weil, Planning Commissioner
Ron Nault, Finance Director
Doug Anderson, Transportation Engineer
Katie Pitcher, Administrative Assistant II
The Committee scheduled and met on five occasions. Each meeting
had a specific agenda. They were as follows:
RFP Minimum Requirements Review
Business/City Reference Checks and Financial Review
Proposed Locations Review
Proposed Locations Review/Final Selections
Proposal Evaluations/Ranking
RFP Minimum Requirements Review
Attachment "A" gives a breakdown of all minimum requirements
contained in the RFP. Each proposal met the minimum requirements.
Business/City Reference Checks and Financial Review
The Committee members shared the responsibility for conducting the
reference checks for each of the respondents. Attachment "B" is a.
list of the questions asked. The following are the results of the
reference checks:
Patrick-Target Media - Excellent references. The cities contacted
rated,the contractor as responsive, professional and cooperative.
Gannett Transit - Excellent references. The cities contacted gave
strong recommendations and rated their responsiveness as very good.
Metro Display - The cities contacted indicated that there had been
a previous problem with the collection of franchise fees when the
company went through bankruptcy proceedings. One city also
reported a problem with shelter maintenance during that time,
although it was indicated that the contractor did respond
immediately when called by the city. Ail delinquent franchise fees
were ultimately paid.
Financial Reviews of the Pro Forma's contained in each proposal
were completed by the Finance Director and Community Development
Department staff. Two proposals (Patrick-Target Media and Gannett
Transit) initially lacked adequate information to conduct a
complete analysis, however, when additional information was
requested to facilitate the review it was provided in a timely
manner. Metro Display and Patrick-Target's Pro Forma's were
subsequently deemed acceptable, although there remained some
concerns regarding Gannett's Pro Forma.
Authorization to Enter into Negotiations for Advertising Bus
Shelters Program
January 16, 1995
Page 3
Proposed Location Review
Each company proposed a different number of advertising shelters as
shown below. The Proposal Evaluation Committee also reviewed each
o the proposed locations in detail, taking into consideration
existing right-of-way constraints and the surrounding area
(Attachment "C"). The following is the number of locations that
were proposed, the actual number that were found acceptable by the
Proposal Evaluation Committee, and the number of non-advertising
shelters proposed (not a requirement in the RFP):
PROPOSER
Patrick-Target
Gannett Transit
Metro Display
NUMBER OF
ADV. SHELTERS
NUMBER OF
ACCEPTABLE
LOCATIONS
25
75 44
15
20
11
NUMBER OF
NON-ADV.
SHELTERS
50
Franchise Fees and Revenue Generation
The following is a breakdown of the franchise fees and other items
originally proposed by each respondent to the RFP:
Patrick-Target:
$125 per month per shelter
1% of gross advertising revenue
Gannett Transit
$100 per month per shelter
2% of gross advertising revenue
Metro Display
$100 per month per shelter
25% of gross advertising revenue above
revenue of $104,950.
Patrick-Target received the highest rating by the Evaluation
Committee at 91.6 points. The significant difference between
Patrick-Target's proposal and the other two was its overall
financial value. The Committee evaluated and financially analyzed
each proposal based upon the original proposed number of shelters
by each company as well as the number of approved shelters. As
shown in Attachment "D" Patrick-Target's approved locations will
result in $68,880.00 annual revenue to the City and $344,400.00
over the life of the minimum term of the franchise agreement (five
years). This compares to Gannett with annual revenue of $19,377.00
for approved locations (15 out of 25 proposed), or $96,885.00 over
the minimum term and Metro Display with annual revenue of
$13,200.00 for approved locations (11 out of 20 proposed) or
$66,000.00 over the minimum term. These numbers excluded the
additional items proposed by each company which are detailed in
both Attachment "A" and Attachment "D".
Authorization to Enter into Negotiations for Advertising Bus
Shelters Program
January 16, 1995
Page 4
It is important to note that preliminary financial assessment of
each proposal is intended to be an illustration of the value based
upon the proposal as submitted and review and may be modified due
to the outcome of the negotiations. The following is a summation
for each proposal of the total points received utilizing the
criteria in the evaluation form:
Patrick-Target 91.6 Points
Gannett Transit 78.2 Points
Metro Display 59.8 Points
CONCLUSION
Based upon the comprehensive evaluation of each response, staff is
requesting authorization to enter into negotiations with Patrick-
Target Media for an exclusive advertising bus shelter franshise.
Christine ~hingleton ~
Assistant City Manager
Kati% Pitcher
Administrative Assistant II
cs: KP: ccg: negbussh
Attachment
Date: January 10, 1995
To ·
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin Ca., 92680
Attn: Katie Pitcher
Administrative Assistant
Subj: Bus StOp Shelter Proposal Process
Ref: City of Tustin letter, dated January 5, 1995
Dear Katie:
Metro Display Advertising (MDA), Inc., dba Bustop Shelters of
California, welcomes the opportunity to respond to your letter of
January 5th.
Metro Display does have a concern, but not necessarily with the
proposal evaluation process per se, but more generally with the
overall process.
During the course of our discussions with staff personnel
throughout the proposal time period, MDA was led to believe that
the City of Tustin was reluctant to permit wide scale advertising
throughout the city but was leaning towards a much more
conservative program. This feeling resulted in a very conservative
program being offered in the MDA proposal (i.e. 20 bus stop
shelters).
With over 800 complete shelters on our warehouse inventory, MDA is
in a position to offer as many shelters as desired by your city.
The misunderstanding of intent was the only factor limiting the
number of shelters offered to the City of Tustin.
Correspondingly, as the number of shelters increase in each city,
so does the amount of city revenue increase; both in higher
guaranteed fees and in higher percentage of advertising revenue.
Inasmuch as MDA is a local business eager to serve our community,
we would be pleased at an opportunity to submit a revised proposal
that would fully satisfy Tustin's transit requirements. Please
feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance to you.
S~incerely, _-~
Robert C. Lamb,
General Manager, Metro Display Advertising
( & 32 year Tustin Resident)
· :
· o
"ATTACHMENT A
Z
w
[]C
ILl
W
Z
.>
o
>.
· ~ ~ "°
· ~ '~ .-> .~ o ~ o ~
-~x x x x ~ ~ x ,x x x x ~
>. B >
.
~x x x x' x x x 'x x x x
i.
.
..
X X X X X X X X X X X X~
· ~
.... · .. . . . · ... ..-. ..... . . .
.
I ' '
. %-,
.
.
,,
~ 0
.= _ ~ o, = ~
· - . m ._~
W I ~ ,-
- o ~z'~'XI I
.
[[
'X ~ ~ ~ IX~ ~ ~ o_ ~ ~ ~ ~
.
ZZx /~ ~ ~
X/~ ~ o ~'~ ~
:/~ .~g ~-.
. ': ..... ~ ....
~ ,WI I~ ~ ..
~ ~/ /o ,~ ~1 I~ C ~ '
" ~/'l~: ~.~.m-~,~ , '~'. .".
n-
h
Z
0
0
Z
C) ·
z
II
.0
n
uJ
0
I1'
·
·
ATTACHMENT B"
CITY OF TUSTIN
BUS SHELTER RFP REFERENCE CHECK
Suggested Inquiries
Ci~_ References
'..What.is the .length ~of.the relationship between......~.., contractor. ....
and city?
~ 2. How many shelters?"
3. How would you rate the performance of'xthe contractor overall?
4. .. How is the c0nt.rac, t0r's. .main.te..nan.ce.o..f.the.s. he!ters (graffiti removal, .t. rash.encl0sures,.' .......... '
......damage)?. .
·
·
· .
Se
Are the franchis6 fee 'and other payments made on time?
6. Have you ever had any problems regarding advertisement content?
7. Would you recommend using this contractor for future contracts with your city?
8. Any additional comments you would like to provide?
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF TIJSTIN
RIGHT- P - PATRICK
NOT OF LOCATION G - GANNET
ACCEPT ACCEPT WAY M - METRO COMMENTS
X 9 1. EB 17th St. FS Enderle Center (P~G,M)
X 9 2. EB 17th St. NS Prospect (S Leg) (P,M)
.X :. 18 3.. WB 17th St. FS Prospect (bi L~g) (P,G). · .... · · ........ ...
X 18 4. WB 17th St. FS Treehaven (P,G)
·
" .' " X" '18 5. 'EB17th'St. FS'Yorba'(S I~g)'(P',M) ...... " ·
X 8 6. WB 17th St. FS Yorb~ (P,M,G)
'.'**'>.%'.*>,.'.°.°~'0'..'*'.0:0.'-.'-_-.*05.'*?-*-**-* '°'*-'°0'*-'**°- °'~g,"~::"*:::?--"-*'-*-* *~%"X ...... °.*-...*.'.'.'o** *.0,.'.°.'..**-.'..0*%'..'.-*.-....'..0,.*'".'° °o','.*.'-'.' ~-~°~°~5~-~:°`~5~-.°~?~-~:~-~g~`~°~°`%~:~:~°5~?~°~`~-~?~`~g~g~-5?~5~--~°~5~.~-~---~:~5:~?~ °?.*,~._ .... ~,:.%o.~, ,o~_~o*.....,.o,.o~.%,'.'....:,?
X 8 7. EB 1st St. FS 'B' St. (P) Old Town Are~
X 8 8. WB 1st St. FS 'B" St. (P)
X 8 9. EB 1st St. FS Centennial (Zone 1) (P,M) Existing Shelter
X 8 10. EB 1st St. FS Centennial (~one 3) (P) Existing Shelter
X 8 ill. WB 1st St. FS Fashion (P)
X 8 12. WB 1st St. FS' Newport (P)
..... '" .... X ' '8"' ' 13. 'EB is~'St.'FS"pa~ific''(p)''' ..... -' ' "' "'" ' "'" ' "'
X: ' . 8 14. EB' 1st St. FS Prospec.t' (P,M)'~ Existing Shel.ter' ' '"
,
·
X 8' 15.. WB 1st St. FS ProsPeqt' (P)
X 7 16.' EB 1st St. OPP Tustin .(P)
X 8 17. WB 1st St. FS Yorba :(P)
~..:..;.;. ,>;.::.;..~ .;..;.;..;.;.;.;.; ............. -... .............................................................. . .................
X 8 18. WB Bryan NS Cindy (P)
X 8 19. EB Bryan OPP Whim Sand (P)
[:.::: ~ ~ .:~:.~: ?-.:::'..::~ $::.;::.:.::.:-' 3~:i~:
X 8 20. EB Edinger NS Del Arno (P,GJ Last Phase (Const. after turnout)
X 8 21. WB Edinger FS Red Hill (P,G)
X 8 22. WB El Camino Real FS Entr. THS (P)
X 12 23. WB El Camino Real FS NeWport (P,G) Existing Old Town shelter
-' X 8 ' ' 24. SB Franklin FS Chambers (P)
X 8 25. EB Irvine FS 'B' Street (P)
'X 8. 26. EB Irvine OPP Charloma (P)
X 8 27. EB Irvine FS Newport (P)
,
X 8 28. EB Irvine NS Prospect (P)
X 8 29. WB Irvine FS Prospect (P)
X 8 30. EB Irvine FS Yorba (P)
X 8 31. WB Main FS Centennial (P) Old Town Area
X 8 32. EB Main FB Newport (P)
X 8 33. WB Main NS Newport (P)
X 12 34. WB Main NS Prospect (P) Old Town Area
X 8 35. WB McFadden FS Newport (P,G)
X 8 36. WB McFadden FS Tustin Village (P)
X 8 37. EB McFadden. NS Walnut (P)
X 8 38. WB McFadden FS Williams (P)
NON-ADVERTISING BENCH OKAY
CITY OF TUSTIN
PROPOS~D ADVERTISING'Bus S~L'~RS '
RIGHT- P- PATRICK
NOT OF' LOCATION G - GANNET
ACCEPT ACCEPT WAY M - METRO COMMENTS
X 7 39. SB Newl~rt FS 1st Street (P,M)
· . X 8 40. NB. NeWlX)rt NS Bryan... (P,M) .. -.' .. ~ -:,;. ,. .. , . . ......
· . .
X · :..~/ .41, SB Newport OPP Bryan (P,M) ..
X ' .... '7 472: SB'Newport OPP Bryan (300') '(P) '"
X 8 · 43.. SB Newport FB El Camino Real (P,G,M) Old Town Area
'X'- 8 44. NB Newport OPP Holt (P,M)" '"
X 7 45. SB Newport NS Holt (P,M)
X 8 46. NB NewportFS Irvine (P)
X 8 47. SB Newport NS Irvine (P;M,G)
X 8 48. SB Newport FS Mitchell (P,M,G)
X 8 48A. NB Newport FS Mitchell (G)
X 8 49. NB Newport FS Walnut- (P,G) .
.......... X ..... 8 50. NB' Ne~vpo~t'NS Was~ '(P) ' .'
· X It ' . 51. SBNewportOPPWass- (P) ...... ' " ' ' ".' '
I '
::::::::::-.:..:: ..:: :'.::::::::::::::::::: :::
X · 8 52. NB Red Hill FS Barr. anea (P,G)
X 9 53. SB Red Hill FS Bell (P,G)
X $ '54. SB Red Hill OPP Copperfield (P~M)
X 9 55. NB Red Hill FS Edinger (P,G,M)
X 8 56. SB Red Hill FS Edinger (P,G)
X ii 57. NB Red Hill FS El Camino Real (P,G)
X $ 55. SB Red Hill NS El Camino Real (P,G,M)
X 8 :59. SB Red Hill S Mitchell (P)
X fl 60. SB Red Hill FS Nisson (300') (P)
X 9 61. NB Red Hill FS Parkway Loop (P)
X fl 62. NB Red Hill NS San Juan (P)
X 8 63. SB Red Hill FS San Juan (P)
.. .
·. X fl 64. SB Red Hill FS Santa Fe :(P)' · ..
X 8 65. NB Red Hill ~ MCAS (P) Existing Wood Shelter
X 9 .66. SB Red Hill NS Valencia (P,M).
X 8 67.' SB Red Hill FS Walnut (P)
X 8 68. NB Red Hill OPP Warner (P)
X 8 69. WB Walnut OPP Del Arno (P)
X 8 70. EB Walnut FS Newport (P,G)
X 8 71. EB Walnut FS Red Hill (P) Pad in Ivy
X 8 72. WB Walnut FS Red Hill (P)
X 8 73. WB Walnut FS Silverbrook (P)
X 8 73A. WB Walnut NS Tustin Ranch Road (G)
X 8 74. EB Walnut FS Tustin Ranch (P,G)
X 8 75. SB Yorba FS Irvine (P) -..
* - NON-ADVERTISING BENCH OKAY
.o
..
ATTACHMENT"D
CITY OF TUSTIN
REvENuES - STREET FURNITURE- SERVICES
PATRICK TARGET MEDIA
75 ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS (PROPOSED LOCATIONS)
$125.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter
$5.45 (1% of.Gross Advertising Revenue)
$130.45 ~tal. Re. venue (Per M~difi .~er' Shelter).·
$112,500.00
$4,905.00
$117,405.00
·
20 Non Advertising Bus Sh61ters
50 Concrete Bus Benches
Maintenance:
20 Non Advertising Shelters
7 City Owned Bus Shelters
50 Concrete Bus Benches
· "C~/y Public Service' Panels"'
· .50 Posters (Poster Printing)
TOTAL
$70,000.00
$20,000.00
$9,600.00
$3,600.00
$9,600.00
..'
· '$6;250.00
$236,455.00
44 ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS (APPROVED LOCATIONS)
$125.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter
$5.45 (1% of Gross Advertising Revenue)
$66,000.00
$2,880.00
$130.45 Total Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter)
$68,880.00
4 Non Advertising Bus Shelters
34 Concrete Bus Benches
Maintenance:
4 Non Advertising Shelters
7 City Owned Bus Shelters
34 Concrete Bus Benches
$14,000.00
$13,600.00
..
$1,920.00
$3,600.00
' $6,528.00
City Public Servic~ Panels
50 Posters (Poster Printing)
$6,250.00
TOTAL
$114.,778.00
CITY OF TUSTIN
REVENUES - STREET FURNITURE- SERVICES
GANNETT TRANSIT
25 ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS (PROPOSED LOCATIONS)
$100.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter
, $7.65 (2% of Gross Advertising Revenue)
;$1~17.65 'Total'Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter)
$30,000.00
$2,295:.00
$32,295.00
8 ~Free-Style~ Park Benches
Valued AddedProgram
(Tree or Donation to Community Foundation)
TOTAL
$8,800.00
$2,500.00
$43~595 . O0
15 ADVERTISING BI:IS SHELTERS (APPROVED LOCATIONS)
$100.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter
$7.65 (2% of Gross Advertising Revenue)
$18,000.00
$1,377.00
$107.65 Total Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter) . $19,.377.00
8 ~Free-Style" Park Benches
Value Added Program
(Trees or Donation to Community Foundation)
TOTAL
$8,800.00
$2,500.00
$30,677.00
CITY OF TUSTIN
REVENUES - STREET FURNITURE - SERVICES
METRO DISPLAY
20 ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS (PROPOSED LOCATIONS)
$100.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter'.
.o
... $0.00 (25%of Gross Advertising Revenue after $104,950.00
$24,000.00
.. $o.oo..
$100.00 Total Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter for f'ust 2 years)
$24,000.00
TOTAL
$24,000.00
11 ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS (APPROVED LOCATIONS)
$100.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter
$0.00 (25% of Gross Advertising Revenue after $104,950.00 *)
$13,200.00
$o.oo
$100.00 Total Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter for first 2 years) $13,200.00
TOTAL
$13~200.00
BUS SHELTER REVENUE - YEAR 3
20 ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS (PROPOSED LOCATIONS)
$100.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter
$87.42 (25% of Gross Advertising Revenue after $104,950.00
$24,000.00
$20,998.28
$187.42 Total Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter for first 2 years)
$44,980.80
* Metro Display proposes 25% of gross advertising revenue to be paid for revenue
generated above $104.950. This is not anticipated to be until the third Year of
the contract.
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF TUSTIN
PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM
· ROPOSAL: Evaluator's Name: - ·
·
·
'roposing Firm: Date:
RATING * WEIGHT SCORE
CRITERIA (1-5) FACTOR (COLUMN I x COMMENTS
I II , COLUMN II)
)ualifie~fions of Firm
:elated experience
glevance of recently
ompleted work) 2
rosiness/City References 3
'inaneial Review 2
~:':':':-::'?':':~:':'~'~ ............... ?!':':':':~i i~':':?:':':ii~i:':':'?:i::!%::':?:ii ::??:i::!i::i::i::::i?:~i i ?:i :: i i iiii:: i i i i i i :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: !~i~!~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~.:...~i!~!~!~i~!!i..~.:.:~..~..i:~i..~.......>.~:~.~...~:~i~g~i~
'ranchise Fee/Revenue
}eneration 3
lumber of Proposed Shelter Ia>cations 2
lumber of Acceptable Shelter Locations 2
,la~ntenance Program ~ 3
'.easonableness of Capital
.aaprovement Construction Schedule ' 1
helter Design Options 2
, ,,
Use Scale of 1 - 5,
with 5 as best rating
TOTAL
(100points possible)